Letitia James
A case challenging the Trump administration’s conditions that capped how much homelessness funding could used for housing has won in court.
New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of 18 other attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania won their case regarding conditions on billions of dollars in funding that community organizations across the country rely on to provide housing and services for families experiencing homelessness.
In November 2025, Attorney General James led the coalition in suing the Trump administration to protect more than $3 billion in Continuum of Care (CoC) funds that were jeopardized by new conditions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funds support vital resources for those most at risk of homelessness, such as veterans, those with disabilities, and transgender individuals. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted critical parts of the coalition’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that HUD’s conditions restricting CoC funding are unlawful and cannot be implemented.
U.S. Housing and Urban Development issued a new grant application form in November that imposed a cap on the amount of CoC funds that can support permanent supportive housing. James said if enacted, the cap would have slashed funds for that housing by two-thirds and put an estimated 170,000 people at risk of losing their homes. In New York, 24 different regional CoC organizations receive over $320 million to provide housing and other services. 94 percent of these funds are dedicated to permanent housing, supporting 13,861 households statewide. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc. provides the Continuum of Care in Chautauqua County. HUD also imposed other conditions, barring CoC funds from organizations that acknowledge the existence of transgender or nonbinary individuals and excluding programs that provide services for mental disabilities.
Attorney General James and the coalition argued in their lawsuit that these conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and Congress’ constitutional power to control spending.
In a decision on the coalition’s motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that the conditions on CoC funding that HUD implemented violate the Administrative Procedure Act and cannot be implemented.
Leave a Reply